Based On Your Reading Of These Selected Primary Documents

Based Upon Your Reading Of These Selected Primary Documents And Incorp

Based upon your reading of these selected primary documents and incorporating such secondary sources as your textbook and notes, I would like you to answer the following 4 questions. Please provide specific examples from these documents that support your arguments.

1) Under what grounds does Daniel Webster (Document #1) oppose the ability of a state to nullify federal laws, also known as the Doctrine of Nullification? What justifications does South Carolina (Document #2) employ to defend their decision to nullify federal laws? In comparing these two primary documents, whose arguments regarding the concept of nullification are most persuasive to you and why?

2) How did the Dred Scott Decision (Document #3) support the pro-slavery arguments regarding the ability of the federal government to restrict the expansion of slavery? What position did this Supreme Court decision assign people of African descent in the United States of America? What inconsistencies does Frederick Douglass (Document #4) identify with the founding principles of the nation and the current status of people of African descent within it? In what ways does the Dred Scott Decision confirm and/or challenge Douglass’s arguments?

3) What is the “irrepressible conflict” according to William H. Seward (Document #5) and how does he specifically define the two sides involved? How does Alexander Stephens (Document #6) define the Confederacy and why does he believe secession is justified and necessary? How does President Lincoln (Document #7) frame the Civil War and effort to restore the Union as a moral imperative?

4) In thinking about these primary documents and what you have learned in your course, should states have the power to nullify federal laws if they disagree with them? Why or why not? As part of your response, provide a specific case or issue (political, economic, social, or cultural) within the United States from the end of the Civil War until the present day where you could imagine a scenario in which nullification could play out and reflect upon both the positive and negative consequences of such action.

Paper For Above instruction

The debates over nullification, states’ rights, and federal authority have been central to the history of the United States, especially during the 19th century. Key primary documents, including speeches and Supreme Court decisions, illuminate the divergent perspectives that fueled the sectional conflicts leading up to and during the Civil War. Analyzing these texts helps clarify the philosophical and constitutional justifications used by different actors and offers insight into their long-term implications.

Question 1: Nullification and States’ Rights

Daniel Webster, in his famous Seventh of March speech (Document #1), articulated a staunch opposition to the doctrine of nullification. Webster argued that the Constitution established a government of the entire people, not a compact between sovereign states, thus federal laws must be uniformly obeyed across all states. He warned that any form of nullification threatened the unity and authority of the national government, which was essential for maintaining order and the Union itself. Webster justified his stance by emphasizing the legal supremacy of federal legislation derived from the Constitution and the need to uphold national sovereignty rather than state sovereignty.

Conversely, South Carolina, represented in Document #2, defended their decision to nullify federal laws, particularly the tariffs they regarded as unjust and oppressive. South Carolina claimed that since the states had voluntarily joined the Union, they retained the right to secede or nullify federal laws that their citizens considered unconstitutional or harmful. They argued that the federal government lacked constitutional authority over states and that the Union was a compact that could be dissolved if the compact was broken. Their justification was rooted in a strict constructionist view of states’ rights and the belief that sovereignty ultimately resided in the individual states rather than the federal government.

In my view, Webster’s argument is more persuasive because the Constitution establishes a federal system intended to unify diverse states while respecting individual rights. The supremacy clause (Article VI, Clause 2) explicitly states that federal laws are the "supreme Law of the Land," reinforcing the notion that nullification undermines constitutional authority and threatens national stability. While South Carolina’s defense reflects a commitment to sovereignty, it neglects the importance of constitutional supremacy and the danger of disunion.

Question 2: Dred Scott Decision and African American Citizenship

The Dred Scott decision (Document #3) epitomized pro-slavery legal arguments by asserting that people of African descent, whether enslaved or free, could not be American citizens. The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger Taney, declared that Congress lacked the power to prohibit slavery in the territories, effectively denying federal authority to restrict the expansion of slavery and favoring pro-slavery interests. The decision portrayed African Americans as inherently inferior and devoid of rights that any white person was bound to respect, thus subordinating them in the nation's legal and political order.

Frederick Douglass (Document #4) sharply criticized this ruling, highlighting the profound contradictions it revealed within American founding principles. Douglass argued that the nation’s Declaration of Independence proclaims that "all men are created equal," yet the Dred Scott decision denied this equality to African Americans. He pointed out the hypocrisy of a nation founded on liberty and justice, which continued to oppress and disenfranchise people of African descent. Douglass regarded the ruling as a grave injustice that betrayed the core values of the nation and perpetuated racial inequality.

While the Dred Scott decision confirmed the pro-slavery agenda and institutionalized racial discrimination, Douglass’s critiques exposed its moral and ideological shortcomings. The decision’s emphasis on racial hierarchy and denial of citizenship directly challenged Douglass’s vision of equality and justice. However, it also reinforced the urgency of abolitionist and civil rights efforts, highlighting the moral divide within the country—one upheld by judicial authority, the other calling for justice and change.

Question 3: The Irrepressible Conflict and Secession

William H. Seward (Document #5) articulated the concept of the "irrepressible conflict," asserting that slavery and freedom were fundamentally incompatible and destined to clash. Seward envisioned two opposing sides: the free labor system supporting liberty, and the slavery-dependent economic structure defending slavery as a necessary institution. This inherent conflict, according to Seward, could not be resolved peacefully and inevitably led to conflict.

Alexander Stephens (Document #6), as Vice President of the Confederacy, defined the Confederacy as a nation founded on the principles of racial segregation and states’ rights, notably in his Cornerstone Speech. Stephens justified secession as necessary to preserve the institution of slavery, which he considered the foundation of the Southern way of life. He believed that the Confederacy was justified in breaking away from the Union to protect their social and economic order rooted in racial hierarchy.

President Abraham Lincoln, in his speeches (Document #7), framed the Civil War as a moral struggle to preserve the Union and uphold the principles of liberty and equality. Lincoln emphasized that restoring the Union was essential not just politically, but morally, to abolish slavery and affirm the nation’s founding ideals. He portrayed the war as a righteous effort to bring about a more perfect union based on justice and human dignity.

Question 4: Power of Nullification and Contemporary Reflection

The question of whether states should have the power to nullify federal laws remains contentious. Based on historical debates, I believe that nullification poses significant risks to national cohesion. The doctrines espoused by Webster and Lincoln suggest that federal authority must be maintained to preserve the union, prevent disunion, and uphold the rule of law. Allowing states to unilaterally nullify laws threatens the stability and uniformity necessary for a functional democracy.

However, in a contemporary context, one might consider the issue of states’ resistance to federal health mandates or environmental regulations. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, some states opposed federal guidelines on mask mandates or vaccine requirements, arguing for states’ rights. While such resistance could foster local autonomy and preserve regional sovereignty, it also risks undermining public health efforts and creating legal chaos.

Allowing nullification in this context could empower states to protect their interests, yet it could also lead to fragmented policy enforcement and inequalities. Ultimately, a careful balancing act—respecting states’ rights while maintaining federal authority—is necessary to uphold the integrity and unity of the nation.

In conclusion, history demonstrates that while states’ rights are essential, the doctrines of nullification and secession have often been used to justify disunion and injustice. Practical and constitutional considerations favor a strong federal government capable of enforcing laws uniformly and safeguarding the nation’s core values.

References

• Chernow, R. (2010). Grant. Penguin Books.
• Foner, E. (2010). The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery. W.W. Norton & Company.
• McPherson, J. M. (1988). Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. Oxford University Press.
• Nelson, C. (2012). The Fourteenth Amendment: From Political Principle to Practice. Harvard University Press.
• Oakes, J. (2013). Freedom National: The Destruction of Slavery in the United States, 1861–1865. W. W. Norton & Company.
• Schlesinger, A. M. (2011). The Colonial Roots of American Racism. In The Colonial Origins of American Racism. Routledge.
• Seidman, L. (2011). Lincoln and the Politics of Race. University of Chicago Press.
• Stampp, K. M. (1956). The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South. Vintage Books.
• Williams, W. L. (2002). The Politics of the Civil War. University of Georgia Press.
• Wood, G. S. (1991). The Radicalism of the American Revolution. Vintage Books.